PACK TEC INDUSTRIES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3145/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to respond to notices because of a partner's accident. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading of packaging materials, filed a return declaring a loss. The AO added a significant amount as long-term capital gains due to the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside due to unavoidable circumstances preventing the assessee from responding to notices. Whether the assessee deserves an opportunity to present its case before the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITP
For Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 28.04.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3145/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/s. Pack Tec Industries, Vs. ITO, Flat No.101, Swarna Meenakshi Pride Ward – 1, Nagar, Bethur, Kadugodi, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 057. PAN : AANFP 2101 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITP Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 28.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2026 O R D E R Per Balakrishnan S, Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) (NFAC, Delhi], vide DIN and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1081536526(1) dated 08.10.2025, for the Assessment Year 2022-23 arising out of the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.03.2024.

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of packaging materials, filed its return of income on 07.10.2022 declaring a loss of Rs.2,35,52,900/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the issues relating to low

ITA No.3145/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4

long-term capital gain and high improvement cost claimed by the assessee. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued electronically through ITBA. In response, the assessee furnished partial details. The AO considered the replies filed by the assessee without any documentary evidence, framed the assessment by adding an amount of Rs.2,44,47,100/- as long term gains.

3.

On being aggrieved by the order of the learned AO, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) observed that assessee has not complied with the notices issued and hence confirmed the addition made by the learned AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

4.

At the outset, the learned AR submitted that the assessee could not appear before the leaned CIT(A) due to the fact that the main partner Shri. Balakrishna Reddy met with an accident during the month of July, 2025 with severe injuries. He submitted that the medical records and the photos of accident vehicle are enclosed for records. He therefore pleaded that due to hospitalization and for the treatment of injuries, assessee could not respond to the notice issued by the leanred CIT(A). Assessee was not aware of issuance is notices dated 13.08.2025 and 15.09.2025. He therefore prayed that the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) shall be set aside for reconsideration in the interest of equity and justice.

5.

Per contra, the learned DR relied on the order of Revenue authorities.

ITA No.3145/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4

6.

We heard the rival contentions and perused the documents available on record. It is an admitted fact that assessee has met with an accident in the month of July, 2025 and therefore could not respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and furnished the documents in support of the grounds raised by the assessee. There is merit in the arguments of the learned AR that in the interest of justice and equity, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) shall be set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that assessee deserves an opportunity of being heard before the learned CIT(A) and therefore we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) by restoring the matter for reconsideration to the file of learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. Needless to say that the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (BALAKRISHNAN S) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore. Dated: 15.05.2026. /NS/*

ITA No.3145/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4

Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →